@
DrWatson perhaps they do offer products labeled that way but cosmetics companies themselves stand on a foundation of the use of animals for product safety and development for decades long before they became by mid 20th century standard female acoutrements.
Along with their remeniscing through or modernization naming conventions to aim at or service the nutrient aspects along specific age groups. I can envision someone at least considering a label alteration at the very least.
Proprietary patented secret chemical formulas, you know, cannot always be divulged to the general public.
It's doubtful anyway that there would actually be a cosmetic company so blindly unaware of the poor cost to benefit ratio that such substantial resources squandered on dermatological and product safety, to say nothing of already established product reliability and quality testing per price point ; just to capture a puny fraction of the vanity vegan cosmetics and self care sector.
For the previous reasons it's probably a risk to assume that multibillion dollar objections require verification with expensive lab tests. It's never been my experience that doggo's or even a little bunny's condition can stand in the way of a womans choices regarding things they use to present themselves physically. Even if they "fudge the numbers" when presenting their conscienciousness and goody-ness of better than thee.
To summarize: Animal diets are healthy. Vegans eat food that food eats. Any claim that it helps the environment is pure cartoon. Any claim that it's for the poor critters is conditional at best.
And if one invited me to a 50,000 dollar a plate vegan gala to meet the world's most beautiful and royal models, I would decline.
Because vegans, they tend to grate on everyone's nerves.
